N.Z. APPEAL CASES
; BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL'. ByTclegrapli—Press Association—Copyright / ■ ' London, July 8. In the Privy Council appeal case Rutherford' versus Acton Adams both of New- Zealand, . the appeal wag dismissed. with costs. In the, case Bacon versus Purcell, 'of Australia; special leave to appeal was granted. (By Tilocraph.—Press Association.} • -v Chrlstchurch, July 9. . Tho-case of ; William Acton Adams, plaintiff, v. Duncan Rutherford, defendant (mentioned ,in to-day's .cables), originated at the Supreme Court m Christchiirch, plaintiff issuing-. a ? writ for £3570 in rcspebfc of tho purchase by! defendant fromhim of certain farm properties. The case came on beforeMr. - Justice; Denniston,', and • after .partial' hearing was removed by consent into'the;'Court of Appeal. On January 21, 1914, the Court of Appeal, in a 1 majority; judgment, decided in' favour of the .plaintiffs for the amount claimed. . Against this: decision defendant (appellant before tho Privy. ; Council appealed. The main question raised in the appeal 'was ■whether the appellant, as the purchaser from respondent, was entitled to'a deduction from the purchase money by reason ;of the alleged material misrepresentation as to the extent of the fencing on the property agreed to be fold. ■ ,
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150710.2.16.1
Bibliographic details
Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2510, 10 July 1915, Page 3
Word Count
188N.Z. APPEAL CASES Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2510, 10 July 1915, Page 3
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in